MAILBAG - May 3, 2001

Lance Pinkham wrote in opposition to unification (“Unification may be

good for few, but not for everyone,” April 26). The title should have

read, “Unification may be good for most, but not for a few.”

Pinkham attempts to legitimize his opinion by virtue of his

association with the Action Committee for Education. He proffers an

argument against unification based upon a survey the committee conducted.

I didn’t need to take graduate statistics to know the survey is

meaningless. The sample size was too selective. Only parents of current

students received a copy. And there were no controls to prevent tactics

that might skew the data.

While the survey may be useful for entertainment and

self-congratulatory purposes, one can draw no valid inferences from it.

Had the Action Committee for Education really been interested in what the

people thought about unification, the survey would have been sent to all

in the Fountain Valley School District territory.

Pinkham lives in a part of the school district that lies within the

city of Huntington Beach. He seems disturbed that his and other children

in that area would go, post-unification, to a high school that offers

more advanced placement classes and has more students in performing arts

than do Huntington Beach or Edison high schools, where most “strip”

residents currently attend.

Next Pinkham says the “large growth” in a unified district would

strain the superintendent. It’s my understanding Fountain Valley’s

superintendent, Marc Ecker, is supportive of unification. If the new

unified district would be strangled, the existing Huntington Beach Union

High School District must be garroted. Let’s loosen their noose.

Pinkham then questions who’s going to pay for the sinking buildings at

Fountain Valley High School. All Californians will under Prop. 1A! The

high school district’s imprudent facilities management for two decades

has already stuck it to us taxpayers for $12 to $15 million. Put another

way, that’s 12 million to 15 million reasons to unify.

Pinkham worried about Fountain Valley High School having to rent

facilities for games and concerts. No worries, mate! The school already

has a stadium on campus. One of the high school district’s legacy of

broken promises (more reasons to unify) was to finish it. Hold them to

it!

Finances for the unified district will be no problem. As I’ve said for

over a year now, the school district should sell its three leased

properties. Among other things, the proceeds would permit debt-free

capital improvements of the kind Pinkham identified.

Last came his red herring -- a bond “dilemma.” If a bond were to

become necessary, those who would have to pay for it would be the ones

voting for it. But Pinkham’s choice of the term “dilemma” is amusing.

He said some parents who would pay for such a bond would not use the

new facilities if they transferred their kids to Huntington Beach or

Edison high schools. If this is truly a dilemma, then he certainly

believes parents who send their children to private schools, as well as

adults with no children in school, should not have to pay taxes to

support school bond debts.

Does he wish to retract his red herring?

BRUCE CRAWFORD

Fountain Valley

A sign of the times?

Well, it’s been proven again that the Huntington Beach City Council’s

taste is all in their mouths. This is in reference to the huge Coca Cola

signs splashed all over council chambers.

This question must be asked. Who’s idea was it to advertise Coke in

such a blatant manner? Was it the staff or the council and/or both in

consort and collision?

Whatever, there is no doubt in the minds of many voters that this is

just another sign of the control of big business at the lowest level of

government. In this case, there is no doubt that the council chambers

appear to have been for sale.

Question: Did Coke sales increase in the vending machines the night of

our big sales push? If so, what was our take?

WILLIAM BERNARD

Huntington Beach

* EDITOR’S NOTE: The city of Huntington Beach is sponsored by the Coca

Cola Bottling Co. and receives $300,000 annually for the sponsorship.

This check was presented at the April 16 council meeting, and the signs

were in place for this event.